Awaiting a compelling case to attack Syria

Published: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 03:17 PM.

Obama has acted as if he’s already decided to attack Syria and that he expects America’s allies to come along for the ride because, well, just because.

Given all this murky messaging, it’s not surprising that over the last couple of days, those key allies — and many members of both parties in the U.S. Congress — have told the president: Not so fast.

With customary allies flinching and Congress asking questions, what should Obama do?

Now is the time for sharing the best intel available on the use of chemical weapons and for reminding other governments — and American citizens — that doing nothing, or next to nothing, could invite even greater atrocities.

President Barack Obama has traveled a circuitous path the past few days, shifting from diplomatic caution to military threats about escalating tension in Syria and specifically, whether the Assad regime should be punished for its alleged role in a chemical weapons attack that killed more than a thousand civilians.

Obama’s path takes him this week before a Congress mired in its own political bog. He’s seeking support for a resolution to take military action against Syria — something he probably didn’t have to do, noted U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., whose district includes part of Alamance County.

“I appreciate the president asking Congress to vote on a resolution. I am looking forward to hearing the details of the resolution and learning more concerning the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” Coble said in a prepared statement before adding that he would likely not support the resolution unless compelling reasons arise to do so.

Indeed, Coble’s views reflect what is largely missing from the administration’s argument so far — a clear, compelling case to convince U.S. allies of the justification for an attack and a plan for what will happen after an attack, should Syria or its friends in Tehran or just possibly Moscow retaliate against the U.S. or its allies in the region. Coble’s list of concerns includes the U.S. possibly going it alone in this action and the idea that it’s too little and too late to take action against a brutal regime. Coble also cited prohibitive costs associated with military action, not just now, but years from now.

“I agree that the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people is a heinous act of cowardice. But some 100,000 people have been killed in the Syrian civil war, and we have not acted. We cannot afford to be the world’s police force,” Coble said.

We agree.

The administration is scrambling for a policy on Syria. The result so far: a muddled mess. Obama said long ago that Assad must go and that Syria’s use of chemical weapons would cross a red line. But the idea that Assad was behind the attack isn’t a sure thing.

Obama has acted as if he’s already decided to attack Syria and that he expects America’s allies to come along for the ride because, well, just because.

Given all this murky messaging, it’s not surprising that over the last couple of days, those key allies — and many members of both parties in the U.S. Congress — have told the president: Not so fast.

With customary allies flinching and Congress asking questions, what should Obama do?

Now is the time for sharing the best intel available on the use of chemical weapons and for reminding other governments — and American citizens — that doing nothing, or next to nothing, could invite even greater atrocities.